5 ms·

With all of the discussion going on there seems to be one thing that people are missing: This is the BEGINNING of the technology. Ford is the first to offer t

With all of the discussion going on there seems to be one thing that people are missing: This is the BEGINNING of the technology. Ford is the first to offer this, but now the rest of the companies will be falling all over themselves to compete. The competition will foster better and better technologies over the years, and as a result we'll have modular, bi-directional power systems for all sorts of purposes. And THAT is what's so great about this. I'm not so much excited about the F150 itself (as I wasn't excited about the Tesla Roadster itself), but rather about where this is going to lead over the next decade.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
That's what they said about Concorde too. The march of technology is not always inevitable.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Also the case of nuclear medicine, which will probably be a thing after a century from now.
  - kstenerud 4y ago
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      "They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" - Carl Sagan
    - Aransentin 4y ago
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you lose, then you're forgotten about, then you're yet another example of survivorship bias.
      - kstenerud 4y ago
        Oh I know. All my life I've heard people go to great lengths about why it can't be done, why it won't work, why there's no point in trying. It's like the negativity gives them a raison d'être.
        PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        The negativity can serve a positive purpose, by reminding whose optimism blinds them towards the little details and hurdles that could prevent success. I've been the naysayer in many successful projects and I think that my negativity played a small role in their success.
  - aftbit 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "nuclear medicine", but for me that brings to mind radiotherapies for cancer and radio-imaging (either X-rays or radioisotope tracers), both of which are very much part of modern medicine.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      There are radioactive isotopes that are useful to deliver to cancer cells. We have no way of manufacturing enough volume of said isotopes under the current weapons/energy framework of nuclear materials.
      - aftbit 4y ago
        Can you provide a source? I have not personally heard of a substantial shortage of radioactive isotopes for medical use, nor have I heard of cancer patients going without therapy because of a lack of available materials. I am quite interested in peaceful use of nuclear materials, so I'd love to learn more about this!
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  Supersonic passenger flight is having a Renaissance. It's actually an example of the argument your arguing against. They did say supersonic flight was going to happen. It just took a bit longer than we thought.
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    I'll believe it when I see it. For now it's some companies that have never delivered a production aircraft promising that they'll do something great. Meanwhile, on paper, it's less efficient, more expensive, less practical, more dangerous, and the benefit over regular flight is questionable (cut flight times in half? Is it really worth the effort?)
    - jen20 4y ago
      "More dangerous" probably warrants some investigation given the stellar safety record of Concorde compared to almost any sub-sonic commercial airliner flying today.
      - TremendousJudge 4y ago
        I didn't mention Concorde specifically, but supersonic flight in general. But anyway: the "stellar" safety record of Concorde is: 20 were built, 1 crashed and burned killing all on board. Let's compare it with a plane that has been flying since the same year: the Boeing 737. Of the more than 10,000 that were built, there were about 185 hull loss accidents, of which 83 included fatalities [0]. That's a ratio of less than 0.0083, compared to 0.05 for Concorde. Not exactly great. I'm pretty sure that if you compare it with deaths by trip or by distance traveled it's gonna be even worse. I think Concorde was pretty cool, but let's not kid ourselves. And I'm not even gonna mention the track record of the Tu-144. [0] https://www.quora.com/How-many-737-planes-of-all-models-have-crashed/answer/Cameron-Fraser-4 https://www.quora.com/How-many-737-planes-of-all-models-have...
        iancmceachern 4y ago
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Supersonic flight has superlinearly more drag than subsonic flight. IIRC, n^4 or n^5, while drag was normally n^2 kinda thing at subsonic speeds. Concorde was progress, but backwards progress in terms of what matters in terms of global warming (etc. etc.) You can reduce some drag by flying higher (thinner air, less drag effects), but that also requires more fuel to reach higher into the atmosphere. So its just inefficient all around.
  - ouid 4y ago
    It was both designed as a luxury experience and to take as little time as possible. These goals are fundamentally at odds.
- samatman 4y ago
  The sound barrier is a stark nonlinearity in air travel. Electric cars have nothing of the sort. The future is evidently one of modest improvement toward a steady state for existing lithium chemistries and the motors which they drive. There's room for quantum improvement in battery chemistry but I'm in camp Goodenough, I expect in 20 years 90% of vehicle batteries will be a lithium cobalt or lithium iron phosphate pack, as they are now (let's ignore the surprising number of lead-acid cars in China as the evolutionary dead end which they are). We're somewhere in the comfortable middle in terms of technology, and right at the starting line industrially. Most of the economies of scale are yet to come.
  - tiffanyh 4y ago
    GP argument is Elon's position as well that technology does NOT inevitably advance forward. We forget how the Egyptians built the pyramids, or how the Romans built the aquifers or even how to land on the moon. Unless we're actively working to improve and to build on top of prior advancements, technology will not inevitably advance.
    - samatman 4y ago
      GPs post is two sentences and one of them is about the Concorde. I believe it was fair to stick to explaining why that isn't especially germane to electric autos; it isn't. Neither are ancient burial mounds, moon landings, nor in fact the Roman ability to build underground lakes, which we will never recover since they were unable to do so. I know you meant aquaduct but of course California has put the Romans to shame in that department.
frankfrankfrank 4y ago
- snewman 4y ago
  - yoinkelberry 4y ago
  - yoinkelberry2 4y ago
- yoinkelberry 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

That's what they said about Concorde too. The march of technology is not always inevitable.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Also the case of nuclear medicine, which will probably be a thing after a century from now.
- kstenerud 4y ago
  First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    "They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown" - Carl Sagan
  - Aransentin 4y ago
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you lose, then you're forgotten about, then you're yet another example of survivorship bias.
    - kstenerud 4y ago
      Oh I know. All my life I've heard people go to great lengths about why it can't be done, why it won't work, why there's no point in trying. It's like the negativity gives them a raison d'être.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        The negativity can serve a positive purpose, by reminding whose optimism blinds them towards the little details and hurdles that could prevent success. I've been the naysayer in many successful projects and I think that my negativity played a small role in their success.
- aftbit 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "nuclear medicine", but for me that brings to mind radiotherapies for cancer and radio-imaging (either X-rays or radioisotope tracers), both of which are very much part of modern medicine.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    There are radioactive isotopes that are useful to deliver to cancer cells. We have no way of manufacturing enough volume of said isotopes under the current weapons/energy framework of nuclear materials.
    - aftbit 4y ago
      Can you provide a source? I have not personally heard of a substantial shortage of radioactive isotopes for medical use, nor have I heard of cancer patients going without therapy because of a lack of available materials. I am quite interested in peaceful use of nuclear materials, so I'd love to learn more about this!
iancmceachern 4y ago
Supersonic passenger flight is having a Renaissance. It's actually an example of the argument your arguing against. They did say supersonic flight was going to happen. It just took a bit longer than we thought.
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  I'll believe it when I see it. For now it's some companies that have never delivered a production aircraft promising that they'll do something great. Meanwhile, on paper, it's less efficient, more expensive, less practical, more dangerous, and the benefit over regular flight is questionable (cut flight times in half? Is it really worth the effort?)
  - jen20 4y ago
    "More dangerous" probably warrants some investigation given the stellar safety record of Concorde compared to almost any sub-sonic commercial airliner flying today.
    - TremendousJudge 4y ago
      I didn't mention Concorde specifically, but supersonic flight in general. But anyway: the "stellar" safety record of Concorde is: 20 were built, 1 crashed and burned killing all on board. Let's compare it with a plane that has been flying since the same year: the Boeing 737. Of the more than 10,000 that were built, there were about 185 hull loss accidents, of which 83 included fatalities [0]. That's a ratio of less than 0.0083, compared to 0.05 for Concorde. Not exactly great. I'm pretty sure that if you compare it with deaths by trip or by distance traveled it's gonna be even worse. I think Concorde was pretty cool, but let's not kid ourselves. And I'm not even gonna mention the track record of the Tu-144. [0] https://www.quora.com/How-many-737-planes-of-all-models-have-crashed/answer/Cameron-Fraser-4 https://www.quora.com/How-many-737-planes-of-all-models-have...
      - iancmceachern 4y ago
dragontamer 4y ago
Supersonic flight has superlinearly more drag than subsonic flight. IIRC, n^4 or n^5, while drag was normally n^2 kinda thing at subsonic speeds. Concorde was progress, but backwards progress in terms of what matters in terms of global warming (etc. etc.) You can reduce some drag by flying higher (thinner air, less drag effects), but that also requires more fuel to reach higher into the atmosphere. So its just inefficient all around.
- ouid 4y ago
  It was both designed as a luxury experience and to take as little time as possible. These goals are fundamentally at odds.
samatman 4y ago
The sound barrier is a stark nonlinearity in air travel. Electric cars have nothing of the sort. The future is evidently one of modest improvement toward a steady state for existing lithium chemistries and the motors which they drive. There's room for quantum improvement in battery chemistry but I'm in camp Goodenough, I expect in 20 years 90% of vehicle batteries will be a lithium cobalt or lithium iron phosphate pack, as they are now (let's ignore the surprising number of lead-acid cars in China as the evolutionary dead end which they are). We're somewhere in the comfortable middle in terms of technology, and right at the starting line industrially. Most of the economies of scale are yet to come.
- tiffanyh 4y ago
  GP argument is Elon's position as well that technology does NOT inevitably advance forward. We forget how the Egyptians built the pyramids, or how the Romans built the aquifers or even how to land on the moon. Unless we're actively working to improve and to build on top of prior advancements, technology will not inevitably advance.
  - samatman 4y ago
    GPs post is two sentences and one of them is about the Concorde. I believe it was fair to stick to explaining why that isn't especially germane to electric autos; it isn't. Neither are ancient burial mounds, moon landings, nor in fact the Roman ability to build underground lakes, which we will never recover since they were unable to do so. I know you meant aquaduct but of course California has put the Romans to shame in that department.

frankfrankfrank 4y ago

snewman 4y ago
- yoinkelberry 4y ago
- yoinkelberry2 4y ago
yoinkelberry 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]